Wichita eagle., 1887-04-24
KANSAS SETTLERS
Important Letter from E1-Qov-
eruOr Crawford
A Decision Of the Secretary Of the
Interior Affecting Usage Land
Prom ption.

Hon. Il II. Murdoch. Wichita, KansaA
Ny Dear Sir-I hand you herewith 9
late decision by the acting secretary Of the
interior. relating TO the public lands. Ac
cording to this decision, as will be observ
ed, person who has once preempted q
quarter section Of Usage lands in Kansas
cannot thereafter preempt tract else
where.
By publishing this decision, you would
doubtless confer q favor on many persons
who are In doubt. as to the questions In
volved. Yours. truly,
SAMUEL J. CRAWFORD.
Pre-Emption: Usage Trust Lands
TODD KNEPPLE.
ing entry hereunder In accordance with the act
of May IS. 1880. the right OF -emption to such
or any other land. Is thereby exhausted
Ac ing Secretary Muidrow to Commissioner Sparks,
March 81 1887:
This is an appeal from your decision OF
February 10Th last, affirming the action of
the local officers in rejecting the applics-
ton of Todd Knepple to file for the e or
of sec. II, t. "a g., r. AZ W., Lamar Color
ado. upon the ground that knepple had
exhausted his right Of presumption by FL
ing and perfecting entry on Usage lands in
Kansas under the act of May %, 1880,
(21 Stat, 143). 1t is admitted that appli-
cant filed declaratory statement for q quar-
ter section of the Usage Indian trust and
diminished reserve land at Garden City,
Kansas, claiming said tract as pre- emp
ton right under the provision OF the act OF
May %, 1880. perfected said entry and
that certificate therefor was issued to him
February 10, 1885.
January "a, 1887. Knepple offered to
file declaratOry statement for the ne Or OF
Sec. II. T. "a g., r. 46 W., Lamar Colora-
do, claiming the same rs a pre- emption
right under the act of September 4, 1S41.
The register and receiver rejected said ap-
plication for the reason above stated, from
which rejection applicant appealed, upon
the ground C) that he has meyer made such
presumption filing as is contemplated by
section 2,26l of the revised statutes, and
(s) that Usage Indian trust and diminished
reserve lands are not subject to the general
pre- emption laws, and hence a filing and
entry upon such lands Is no bar to subse
quent entry of public land under the act
of September 4, 1S41.
This appeal brings directly In issue the
question, whether a pre-emptor exhansts
his presumption right by filing an Usage
trust and diminished reserve lands, and
that is the sole issue in the case.
1t is claimed by appellant that the ruling
of the department in the case of Wood
bury, administrator, v. United States Is l..
D., 303), Is decisive of this question. In
that case the sole question decided was that
the statutory oath required Of pre-emptOr
is not applicable to an entry under the act
of May %, 1880, the only condition pre-
requisite to such entries being that the en-
tryman shall be an actual settler, with the
qualifications of pre- emptor.
1t does not follow, however, that an en-
try of Usage Indian lands is not the exer-
else of a presumption right, although the
conditions of entry may not be governed
by the general pre- emption law In all re-
spects. 1t was distinctly held that an entry
of Usage lands could be made only by
person having the qualifications Of pre-
emptor The exercise Of right due alone
to pre- emptor is necessarily due to the ex-
ercise Of the pre-emptiOn right.
But appellant urges In support of this
appeal that the oath required of appellant
in the present application is that he has
never had the benefit of any right of pre-
emptiOn under section 2259," and that he
did not exercise his ''pre enption right" in
making his entry Of the Usage trust lands,
or claim said lands by virtue of
the provision of section 1853,
but that in his Usage declaratory statement
he declared his intention to claim said
tract as presumption right under the pro-
visions of the act of May %, 1880, for the
disposal Of the Usage Iadian lands" This
statement Of appellant seems to be con-
elusive argument against the further ex-
arciSe OF the right of pre-emption.
What is the right of pre- emption under
section 1853 of the Revised Statutes? 1t
Is right based upon settlement, inhab
fancy and cultivation, to purchase by
legal subdivisions and number of acres not
20 exceed one hundred ann sixty, upon sub
'cribing to the statutory oath required In
section 2282 of the Revised Statutes
The act of May %. 1890, provides that
he Usage Indian trust and diminished
reserve lands shall be subject to disposal
% actual settlers only having the qualifica-
ions of pre-emptOrs.
A exemption right in It's general sense
S defined to be 1.-The right or privilege of
purchasing before others" As applied to
he act of May %, $780, it is the exclusive
light of purchasing in the first instance,
because these lands can not be offered for
ale in any other manner until the pre-
.mption right has been exercised by some
me and default In payment be made there |
or.
1t being shown that this Is pre- -emption
light. the question arises can this right be !
gain exercised in the purchase of either |
Usage lands or other lands un0er the gen. |
raj presumption laws!
t cannot be questioned that the spirit and |
,olcy of the general land law is that no
,erson shall have more than one prefer |
nee right of purchase of any part of the
public domain, and at such right is ex |
,austed when exercised in the purchase of |
my legal subdivision allowed by law under |
he general pre- empiion law, or under the |
vet of May %, 1880, providing for the dis
position of the Usage Indian trust and di |
reserve lands.
Under the act of July Is, 1870 Q6 Stat,
,62) it was not contemplated shat settlement |
upon these lauds should be governed in Sll |
bp the general presumption laws.
Foster v. Brost, IL Kan. $500 but he &C: |
Il May 8, 1879. declared that these lands |
,hould be subject to disposal 10 actual |
'ettlers only In accordance with the general
principles Ct the presumption laws made |
Under the detection of the commissioner |
If the general land Office, provided. how
aver. THAT the restriction of the pre- |
,mption laws relating to previous enjoy |
nens Of the pre-emption right. TO removal |
rom ones own lsud In the same state, or |
he ownership OF over three hundred anG !
wenty acres, shall not apply to any settler |
actually residing on his or her claim at the |
,ste Of the passage Of this act" az Stat, |